PANDEMONIUM BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS.
Merida, Venezuela, 1999.
COPYRIGHT: Franz J. T. Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home-Work
In the previous lecture we have dealt with intellectual scientific data and verification. Before we continue, let us focus the current level a n d degree of our scientific deliberations. But, let us first do some " home-work ".
Per definitionem, a Gegensatz exists as a Satz a n d a Gegensatz. A Gegensatz does not exist as a formal-logical contradiction, that is, by placing A against Non-A or B, where only A is "true". Also it does not exist as dialectical "unity and contradiction of opposites": A and Non-A, A and B, hot and cold, Labour and Capital. In other words, we do not contrapostulate two Sätze; per contra, we always contrapostulate a Satz a n d a Gegensatz !
Identification of the Satz and of the Gegensatz to be contrapostulated
Satz: Intellect and Reason
Gegensatz (as Satz): (Intellect a n d Reason) and
Gegensatz (as Gegensatz): (Intellect and Reason) a n d (Intellect a n d Reason)
Explanation regarding Satz:
In this respect, it is worthwhile to remember Heracleitus’ "panta rhei",
everything flows, everything changes; depending on the context, the level,
degree or mension; even "and" is not always the same
"and" as before; similarly, to themselves, " a n d ", Cosmos, Einai,
Einai-In-Itself, Einai-For-Itself, Intellect a n d Reason, all can be identical,
different, identical and different, identical a n d different, depending
on their specific relations in question, and on our method, focus and deliberations.
In this case, the question might arise, why "and", denoting a non-relation, would appear within Einai. Being "Satz" within Einai there is however no problem: "and" denotes the non-relation of Einai-In-Itself (Intellect) towards Einai-For-Itself (Reason), ergo: Intellect and Reason.
Explanation regarding Gegensatz as Satz and Gegensatz as Gegensatz:
Of course, intensively, for-itself, the Gegensatz: Einai-In- a n d For-Itself, Intellect a n d Reason, exists as such, as a Gegensatz. Extensively, in-itself, it is a Satz!
We have to analyse the intensive Gegensatz, which cosmically a
n d ontically exists as Satz a n d Gegensatz, "within" Einai, i.e., we
have to contrapostulate Einai-In-Itself a n d Einai-For-Itself, Intellect
a n d Reason, in the following lectures.
However, it is pertinent to note that Einai as such, as Einai-In-Itself
a n d Einai-For-Itself, as Intellect
a n d Reason, in non-relation to either Cosmos or Nothing, is an intensive
Gegensatz, it still is a Satz, a Postulate.
The authentic intensive a n d extensive Gegensatz exists as :
COSMOS a n d Einai (the latter, as Intellect a n d Reason).
[Intellect and Reason] a n d [(Intellect and Reason) a n d (Intellect a n d Reason)]
[and] a n d [a n d]
[Intellect] a n d [Reason]
How this is explained within the context of our general method, the following indicates:
Cosmos a n d [Intellect] a n d [Reason]
Cosmos a n d Einai.
Also, please note : Here the genuine Gegensatz exists as Satz a n d Gegensatz, as Cosmos a n d Einai ! ! ! It has a "multiple" Identity : It is a Satz, it exists as an intensive Gegensatz, it exists as an extensive Gegensatz, It exists as Satz a n d Gegensatz.
It follows that we have dealt with the following Sätze (Postulates) until now :
Cosmos, and, Einai, Einai-In-Itself, Einai-In-Itself and Einai-For-Itself,
and we will continue now with the following Gegensatz, as Satz a n d Gegensatz, non-related to either Cosmos or Nothing,
with :
Einai-In-Itself a n d Einai-For-Itself , that is, with
Intellect a n d Reason.
Again, please note : As such, the above is an authentic SATZ ! It is also a genuine intensive GEGENSATZ !
Review
We have discussed the Satz: Einai-In-Itself (Intellect), which by nature
is Einai-In-Itself and Einai-For-Itself; then we have introduced
the Gegensatz (as Satz): Einai-For-Itself (Reason), which exists as Einai-In-Itself
a
n d Einai-For-Itself. That is, until now, we have discussed Intellect
and we will continue with the explanation of Reason, which essentially
is Intellect and Reason, and which existentially exists
as Intellect a n d Reason.
Within this context, we will set forth the discussion about Science,
scientific data, hypothesis and verification, about Philosophy, and about
Theology, which had monopolized the debate with reference to God. We find
an excellent demonstration of patrian argumentation in the latest NEWSWEEK
edition of July 27, 1998, to which we will refer below. Let us now move
from the ontic complexities to the more earthly everyday patrian realities.
800 - 1000.
In the Islamic Empire, mainly in the fields of astronomy, mathematics and philosophy, philosophers and scientists, like Avicenna and Averroes, preserved the Greco-Egyptian achievements.
1268-73.
The first serious attempt was made to synchronize Theology and Natural Science, God and the World, to pave the scientific road towards God. St. Thomas Aquinas tried to synthesize scientific enquiry with Christian theology; he ushered in the era of the search for the "divine plan" on Earth.
1543.
With his opus "De Revolutionibus", Copernicus shook the very foundations of the "Ptolemaic geocentric system", and therewith the whole medieval superstructure; he flung the arrogant patrian "Man" out of his exalted seat in the "Centre of the Universe", and he placed God's "Plan for Man" in jeopardy, by brazenly stating that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun, and not the other way around.
1633.
The ardent disciple of Copernicus, Galileo, in spite of papal censorship and prohibition, continued to teach the "Heliocentric System"; he nearly landed on the burning stake; the Inquisition placed him under house arrest and forced him to recant.
1687.
With his "Principia", Sir Isaac Newton "high-lighted" the mechanistic world outlook. In spite of his "gravitational theory", he opened a scientific "loop-hole" for God, whom he elevated to the honour of being the "First Cause".
1802.
Until then, European Man believed that God, in Biblical fashion, had created all animal species in immutable, constant form. However, the French naturalist Lamarck, in his book, "Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres", claimed that characteristics acquired during the lifetime of an organism can be inherited, hence he developed the evolutionary theory of animal species.
1842.
Thanks to Richard Owen, "Jurrasic Park" was able to be filmed. He gave another blow to the Ark of Noah. On the basis of recently discovered fossils of some ancient extinct animal group, he created the evolutionary concept "dinosaurs"; another proof of the mutation of species.
1859.
The greatest blow came with Darwin's "Origin of Species" ; he claimed that species evolve, and that in the struggle for survival the "fittest" outlive. Thus he developed the theory of evolution by natural selection.
1871.
This was not enough ! In his work, "The Descent of Man", Darwin attacked the "Divine Creation" with full force; he created pandemonium in staunch Christian circles. He argued that the sonorous homo sapiens sapiens without any divine birth assistance had evolved directly from the apes.
1905.
In 1650, James Ussher studied the Bible and other Holy Scriptures, especially the "Book of Genesis", and he came to the spatial-temporal formal-logical conclusion that God had created the Universe on October 22, 4004 B.C. Using a stringent scientific method, in 1905, John William Strutt proved that a certain rock had the age of 2 billion years.
1916.
At last, the perfectly ordered Universe of Newton was challenged. Among other things, with his theories of relativity, Einstein questioned the inverse square law of gravitation and the laws of motion of Newton. Another queer story is his latter-wit : "Science without Religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
1948.
George Gamov introduced the concept "big bang" to describe the theory of primeval explosion, which rejects divine creation of the universe.
1965.
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that outer space is filled with background radiation; this strongly supported the big-bang theory. In fact, in 1989, the COBE satellite made an image of this radiation.
1992.
Pope John Paul II admitted that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in the condemnation of Galileo. He officially apologized for this "mistake".
1996.
The same Pope included the Theory of Evolution into "God's Master Plan" for Man (nice try!), as grotesque as " thou shallst pay thy taxes" was to be included in a more updated version of the "Ten Commandments"...